Extracts From Granville Sharp’s Representations, &c
EXTRACT
FROM A
REPRESENTATION
OF THE
INJUSTICE
AND
DANGEROUS TENDENCY
OF TOLERATING
SLAVERY;
OR
Admitting the least CLAIM of private Property in the Persons of Men in England.
By GRANVILLE SHARP.
FIRST PRINTED IN LONDON.
MDCCLXIX.
CONTENTS.
The occasion of this Treatise. All Persons during their residence in Great Britain are subjects; and as such, bound to the laws, and under the Kings protection. By the English laws, no man, of what condition soever, to be imprisoned, or any way deprived of his LIBERTY, without a legal process. The danger of Slavery taking place in England. Prevails in the Northern Colonies, notwithstanding the people’s plea in favour of Liberty. Advertisements in the New-York Journal for the sale of SLAVES. Advertisements to the same purpose in the public prints in England. The danger of confining any person without a legal warrant. Instances of that nature. Note, Extract of several American laws, Reflexions thereon.
EXTRACT, &c.
Some persons respectable in the law, having given it as their opinion, “That a slave, by coming from the West Indies to Great Britain or Ireland, either with or without his master, doth not become free, or that his master’s property or right in him is not thereby determined or varied;—and that the master may legally compel him to return again to the plantations,”—this causes our author to remark, that these lawyers, by thus stating the case merely on one side of the question, (I mean in favour of the master) have occasioned an unjust presumption and prejudice, plainly inconsistent with the laws of the realm, and against the other side of the question; as they have not signified that their opinion was only conditional, and not absolute, and must be understood on the part of the master, “That he can produce an authentic agreement or contract in writing, by which it shall appear, that the said slave hath voluntarily bound himself, without compulsion or illegal duress.”
Page 5. Indeed there are many instances of persons being freed from slavery by the laws of England, but (God be thanked) there is neither law, nor even a precedent, (at least I have not been able to find one) of a legal determination to justify a master in claiming or detaining any person whatsoever as a slave in England, who has not voluntarily bound himself as such by a contract in writing.
Page 20. An English subject cannot be made a slave without his own free consent: but—a foreign slave is made a subject with or without his own consent: there needs no contract for this purpose, as in the other case; nor any other act or deed whatsoever, but that of his being landed in England; For according to statute 32d of Henry VIII. c. 16. Sect. 9. “Every alien or stranger born out of the King’s obeisance, not being denizen, which now or hereafter shall come into this realm, or elsewhere within the King’s dominions, shall, after the said first of September next coming, be bounden by and unto the laws and statutes of this realm, and to all and singular the contents of the same.”
Now it must be observed, that this law makes no distinction of bond or free, neither of colours or complexions, whether of black, brown, or white; for “every alien or stranger (without exception) are bounden by and unto the law, &c.”
This binding, or obligation, is properly expressed by the English word ligeance, (à ligando) which may be either perpetual or temporary. Wood, b. I. c. 3. p. 37. But one of these is indispensably due to the Sovereign from all ranks and conditions of people; their being bounden unto the laws, (upon which the Sovereign’s right is founded) expresses and implies this subjection to the laws; and therefore to alledge, that an alien is not a subject, because he is in bondage, is not only a plea without foundation, but a contradiction in terms; for every person who, in any respect, is in subjection to the laws, must undoubtedly be a subject.
I come now to the main point—“That every man, woman, or child, that now is, or hereafter shall be, an inhabitant or resiant of this kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed,” is, in some respect or other, the King’s subject, and, as such, is absolutely secure in his or her personal liberty, by virtue of a statute, 31st Car. II. ch. 11. and particularly by the 12th Sect. of the same, wherein subjects of all conditions are plainly included.
This act is expressly intended for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonment beyond the seas. It contains no distinction of “natural born, naturalized, denizen, or alien subject; nor of white or black, freemen, or even of bond-men,” (except in the case already mentioned of a contract in writing, by which it shall appear, that the said slave has voluntarily bound himself, without compulsion or illegal duress, allowed by the 13th Sect. and the exception likewise in the 14th Sect. concerning felons) but they are all included under the general titles of “the subject, any of the said subjects, every such person” &c. Now the definition of the word “person,” in its relative or civil capacity (according to Wood. b. I. c. 11. p. 27.) is either the King, or a subject. These are the only capital distinctions that can be made, tho’ the latter consists of a variety of denominations and degrees.
But if I were even to allow, that a Negroe slave is not a subject, (though I think I have clearly proved that he is) yet it is plain that such an one ought not to be denied the benefit of the King’s court, unless the slave-holder shall be able to prove likewise that he is not, a Man; because every man may be free to sue for, and defend his right in our courts, says a stat. 20th Edw. III. c. 4. and elsewhere, according to law. And no man, of what estate or condition that he be, (here can be no exception whatsoever) shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law. 28th Edw. III, c. 3, No man therefore, of what estate or condition that he be, can lawfully be detained in England as a slave; because we have no law whereby a man may be condemned to slavery without his own consent, (for even convicted felons must “in open court pray to transported.”) (See Habeas Corpus act, Sect. 14.) and therefore there cannot be any “due process of the law” tending to so base a purpose. It follows therefore, that every man, who presumes to detain any person whatsoever as a slave, otherwise than by virtue of a written contract, acts manifestly without “due process of the law,” and consequently is liable to the slave’s “action of false imprisonment,” because “every man may be free to sue,” &c. so that the slave-holder cannot avail himself of his imaginary property, either by the assistance of the common law, or of a court of equity, (except it appears that the said slave has voluntarily bound himself, without compulsion or illegal duress) for in both his suit will certainly appear both unjust and indefensible. The former cannot assist him, because the statute law at present is so far from supposing any man in a state of slavery, that it cannot even permit such a state, except in the two cases mentioned in the 13th and 14th Section of the Habeas Corpus act; and the courts of equity likewise must necessarily decide against him, because his mere mercenary plea of private property cannot equitably, in a case between man and man, stand in competition with that superior property which every man must necessarily be allowed to have in his own proper person.
How then is the slave-holder to secure what he esteems his property? Perhaps he will endeavour clandestinely to seize the supposed slave, in order to transport him (with or without his consent) to the colonies, where such property is allowed: but let him take care what he does, the very attempt is punishable; and even the making over his property to another for that purpose, renders him equally liable to the severe penalties of the law, for a bill of sale may certainly be included under the terms expressed in the Habeas Corpus act, 12th Sect. viz. “Any warrant or writing for such commitment, detainer, imprisonment, or transportation,” &c. It is also dangerous for a counsellor, or any other person to advise (see the act “shall be advising”) such proceedings, by saying, “That a master may legally compel him (the slave) to return again to the plantations.” Likewise an attorney, notary-public, or any other person, who shall presume to draw up, negotiate, of even to witness a bill of sale, or other instrument for such commitment, &c. offends equally against the law, because “All, or any person or persons, that shall frame, contrive, write, seal, or countersign any warrant or writing for such commitment, detainer, imprisonment, or transportation; or shall be advising, aiding, or assisting in the same, or any of them,” are liable to all the penalties of the act. “And the plaintiff, in every such action, shall have judgment to recover his treble costs, besides damages; which damages so to be given shall not be less than five hundred pounds;” so that the injured may have ample satisfaction for their sufferings: and even a judge may not direct or instruct a jury contrary to this statute, whatever his private opinion may be concerning property in slaves; because no order or command, nor no injunction, is allowed to interfere with this golden act of liberty.
—I have before observed, that the general term, “every alien,” includes all strangers whatsoever, and renders them subject to the King, and the laws, during their residence in this kingdom; and this is certainly true, whether the aliens be Turks, Moors, Arabians, Tartars, or even savages, from any part of the world.—Men are rendered obnoxious to the laws by their offences, and not by the particular denomination of their rank, order, parentage, colour, or country; and therefore, though we should suppose that any particular body of people whatsoever were not known, or had in consideration by the legislature at the different times when the severe penal laws were made, yet no man can reasonably conceive, that such men are exempted on this account from the penalties of the said laws, when legally convicted of having offended against them.
Laws calculated for the moral purpose of preventing oppression, are likewise usually supposed to be everlasting, and to make up a part of our happy constitution; for which reason, though the kind of oppression to be guarded against, and the penalties for offenders, are minutely described therein, yet the persons to be protected are comprehended in terms as general as possible; that “no person who now is, or hereafter shall be, an inhabitant or resiant in this kingdom,” (see Habeas Corpus act, Sect. 12th) may seem to be excluded from protection. The general terms of the several statutes before cited, are so full and clear, that they admit of no exception whatsoever; for all persons (Negroes as well as others) must be included in the terms “the subject;”—“no subject of this realm that now is, or hereafter shall be, an inhabitant, &c. any subject; every such person;” see Habeas Corpus act. Also every man may be free to sue, &c. 20th Edward III. cap. 4. and no man, of what estate or condition that he be, shall be taken or imprisoned, &c. True justice makes no respect of persons, and can never deny, to any one that blessing to which all mankind have an undoubted right, their natural liberty: though the law makes no mention of Negroe slaves, yet this is no just argument for excluding them from the general protection of our happy constitution.
Neither can the objection, that Negroe slaves were not “had in consideration or contemplation,” when these laws were made, prove any thing against them; but, on the contrary, much in their favour; for both these circumstances are strong presumptive proofs, that the practice of importing slaves into this kingdom, and retaining them as such, is an innovation entirely foreign to the spirit and intention of the laws now in force.
—Page 79. A toleration of slavery is, in effect, a toleration of inhumanity; for there are wretches in the world who make no scruple to gain, by wearing out their slaves with continual labour, and a scanty allowance, before they have lived out half their natural days. It is notorious, that this is too often the case in the unhappy countries where slavery is tolerated.
See the account of the European settlements in America, Part VI. Chap. 11. concerning the “misery of the Negroes, great waste of them,” &c. which informs us not only of a most scandalous profanation of the Lord’s day, but also of another abomination, which must be infinitely more heinous in the sight of God, viz. oppression carried to such excess, as to be even destructive of the human species.
At present, the inhumanity of constrained labour in excess, extends no farther in England than to our beasts, as post and hackney-horses, sand-asses, &c.
But thanks to our laws, and not to the general good disposition of masters, that it is so; for the wretch who is bad enough to maltreat a helpless beast, would not spare his fellow man if he had him as much in his power.
The maintenance of civil liberty is therefore absolutely necessary to prevent an increase of our national guilt, by the addition of the horrid crime of tyranny.—Notwithstanding that the plea of necessity cannot here be urged, yet this is no reason why an increase of the practice is not to be feared.
Our North American colonies afford us a melancholy instance to the contrary; for though the climate in general is so wholesome and temperate, that it will not authorise this plea of necessity for the employment of slaves, any more than our own, yet the pernicious practice of slave-holding is become almost general in those parts. At New-York, for instance, the infringement on civil or domestic liberty is become notorious, notwithstanding the political controversies of the inhabitants in praise of liberty; but no panegyric on this subject (howsoever elegant in itself) can be graceful or edifying from the mouth or pen of one of those provincials, because men who do not scruple to detain others in slavery, have but a very partial and unjust claim to the protection of the laws of liberty; and indeed it too plainly appears that they have no real regard for liberty, farther than their own private interests are concerned; and (consequently) that they have so little detestation of despotism and tyranny, that they do not scruple to exercise them whenever their caprice excites them, or their private interest seems to require an exertion of their power over their miserable slaves.
Every petty planter, who avails himself of the service of slaves, is an arbitrary monarch, or rather a lawless Bashaw in his own territories, notwithstanding that the imaginary freedom of the province wherein he resides, may seem to forbid the observation.
The boasted liberty of our American colonies, therefore, has so little right to that sacred name, that it seems to differ from the arbitrary power of despotic monarchs only in one circumstance, viz. that it is a many-headed monster of tyranny, which entirely subverts our most excellent constitution; because liberty and slavery are so opposite to each other, that they cannot subsist in the same community. “Political liberty (in mild or well regulated governments) makes civil liberty valuable; and whosoever is deprived of the latter, is deprived also of the former.” This observation of the learned Montesquieu, I hope sufficiently justifies my censure of the Americans for their notorious violation of civil liberty;—The New-York Journal, or, The General Advertiser, for Thursday, 22d October, 1767, gives notice by advertisement, of no less than eight different persons who have escaped from slavery, or are put up to public sale for that horrid purpose.
That I may demonstrate the indecency of such proceedings in a free country, I shall take the liberty of laying some of these advertisements before my readers, by way of example.
“To be SOLD for want of Employment, A likely strong active Negroe man, of about 24 years of age, this country born, (N.B. A natural born subject) understands most of a baker’s trade, and a good deal of farming business, and can do all sorts of house-work.—Also a healthy Negroe wench, of about 21 years old, is a tolerable cook, and capable of doing all sorts of house-work, can be well recommended for her honesty and sobriety: she has a female child of nigh three years old, which will be sold with the wench if required, &c.” Here is not the least consideration, or scruple of conscience, for the inhumanity of parting the mother and young child. From the stile, one would suppose the advertisement to be of no more importance than if it related merely to the sale of a cow and her calf; and that the cow should be sold with or without her calf, according as the purchaser should require.—But not only Negroes, but even American Indians, are detained in the same abominable slavery in our colonies, though there cannot be any reasonable pretence whatsoever for holding one of these as private property; for even if a written contract should be produced as a voucher in such a case, there would still remain great suspicion, that some undue advantage had been taken of the Indian’s ignorance concerning the nature of such a bond.
“Run away, on Monday the 21st instant, from J——n T——, Esq. of West-Chester county, in the province of New-York, An Indian slave, named Abraham, he may have changed his name, about 23 years of age, about five feet five inches.”
Upon the whole, I think I may with justice conclude, that those advertisements discover a shameless prostitution and infringement on the common and natural rights of mankind—But hold! perhaps the Americans may be able, with too much justice, to retort this severe reflexion, and may refer us to news-papers published even in the free city of London, which contain advertisements not less dishonourable than their own. See advertisement in the Public Ledger of 31st December, 1761.
“For SALE, A healthy NEGROE GIRL, aged about fifteen years; speaks good English, works at her needle, washes well, does houshold work, and has had the small-pox. By J.W. &c.”
Another advertisement, not long ago, offered a reward for stopping a female slave who had left her mistress in Hatton-garden. And in the Gazetteer of 18th April, 1769, appeared a very extraordinary advertisement with the following title;
“Horses, Tim Wisky, and black Boy, To be sold at the Bull and Gate Inn. Holborn, A very good Tim Wisky, little the worse for wear, &c.” Afterwards, “A Chesnut Gelding;” then, “A very good grey Mare;” and last of all, (as if of the least consequence) “A well-made good-tempered black Boy, he has lately had the small-pox, and will be sold to any gentleman. Enquire as above.”
Another advertisement in the same paper, contains a very particular description of a Negroe man, called Jeremiah,—and concludes as follows:—“Whoever delivers him to Capt. M—— U——y, on board the Elizabeth, at Prince’s Stairs, Rotherhithe, on or before the 31st instant, shall receive thirty guineas reward, or ten guineas for such intelligence as shall enable the Captain, or his master, effectually to secure him. The utmost secrecy may be depended on.” It is not on account of shame, that men, who are capable of undertaking the desperate and wicked employment of kidnappers, are supposed to be tempted to such a business, by a promise “of the utmost secrecy;” but this must be from a sense of the unlawfulness of the act proposed to them, that they may have less reason to fear a prosecution. And as such a kind of people are supposed to undertake any thing for money, the reward of thirty guineas was tendered at the top of the advertisement, in capital letters. No man can be safe, be he white or black, if temptations to break the laws are so shamefully published in our news-papers.
A Creole Black boy is also offered to sale, in the Daily Advertiser of the same date.
Besides these instances, the Americans may, perhaps, taunt us with the shameful treatment of a poor Negroe servant, who not long ago was put up to sale by public auction, together with the effects of his bankrupt master.—Also, that the prisons of this free city have been frequently prostituted of late, by the tyrannical and dangerous practice of confining Negroes, under the pretence of slavery, though there have been no warrants whatsoever for their commitment.
This circumstance of confining a man without a warrant, has so great a resemblance to the proceedings of a Popish inquisition, that it is but too obvious what dangerous practices such scandalous innovations, if permitted to grow more into use, are liable to introduce. No person can be safe, if wicked and designing men have it in their power, under the pretence of private property as a slave, to throw a man clandestinely, without a warrant, into goal, and to conceal him there, until they can conveniently dispose of him.
A free man may be thus robbed of his liberty, and carried beyond the seas, without having the least opportunity of making his case known; which should teach us how jealous we ought to be of all imprisonments made without the authority, or previous examination, of a civil magistrate.
The distinction of colour will, in a short time, be no protection against such outrages, especially as not only Negroes, but Mulatoes, and even American Indians, (which appears by one of the advertisements before quoted) are retained in slavery in our American colonies; for there are many honest weather-beaten Englishmen, who have as little reason to boast of their complexion as the Indians. And indeed, the more northern Indians have no difference from us in complexion, but such as is occasioned by the climate, or different way of living. The plea of private property, therefore, cannot, by any means, justify a private commitment of any person whatsoever to prison, because of the apparent danger and tendency of such innovation. This dangerous practice of concealing in prison was attempted in the case of Jonathan Strong; for the door-keeper of the P——lt——y C——pt——r (or some person who acted for him) absolutely refused, for two days, to permit this poor injured Negro to be seen or spoke with, though a person went on purpose, both those days, to demand the same.—All laws ought to be founded upon the principle of “doing as one would be done by;” and indeed this principle seems to be the very basis of the English constitution; for what precaution could possibly be more effectual for that purpose, than the right we enjoy of being judged by our Peers, creditable persons of the vicinage; especially, as we may likewise claim the right of excepting against any particular juryman, who might be suspected of partiality.
This law breathes the pure spirit of liberty, equity, and social love; being calculated to maintain that consideration and mutual regard which one person ought to have for another, howsoever unequal in rank or station.
But when any part of the community, under the pretence of private property, is deprived of this common privilege, it is a violation of civil liberty, which is entirely inconsistent with the social principles of a free state.
True liberty protects the labourer as well as his Lord; preserves the dignity of human nature, and seldom fails to render a province rich and populous; whereas, on the other hand, a toleration of slavery is the highest breach of social virtue, and not only tends to depopulation, but too often renders the minds of both masters and slaves utterly depraved and inhuman, by the hateful extremes of exaltation and depression.
If such a toleration should ever be generally admitted in England, (which God forbid) we shall no longer deserve to be esteemed a civilized people; because, when the customs of uncivilized nations, and the uncivilized customs which disgrace our own colonies, are become so familiar as to be permitted amongst us with impunity, we ourselves must insensibly degenerate to the same degree of baseness with those from whom such bad customs were derived; and may, too soon, have the mortification to see the hateful extremes of tyranny and slavery fostered under every roof.
Then must the happy medium of a well regulated liberty be necessarily compelled to find shelter in some more civilized country: where social virtue, and that divine precept, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” are better understood.
An attempt to prove the dangerous tendency, injustice, and disgrace of tolerating slavery amongst Englishmen, would, in any former age, have been esteemed as superfluous and ridiculous, as if a man should undertake, in a formal manner, to prove, that darkness is not light.
Sorry am I, that the depravity of the present age has made a demonstration of this kind necessary.
Now, that I may sum up the amount of what has been said in a single sentence, I shall beg leave to conclude in the words of the great Sir Edward Coke, which, though spoken on a different occasion, are yet applicable to this; see Rushworth’s Hist. Col. An. 1628. 4 Caroli. fol. 450.
“It would be no honour to a King or kingdom, to be a King of bondmen or slaves: the end of this would be both dedecusA and damnumB both to King and kingdom, that in former times have been so renowned.”
Note, at page 63; According to the laws of Jamaica, printed in London, in 1756, “If any slave having been one whole year in this island, (says an act, No 64, clause 5, p. 114) shall run away, and continue absent from his owner’s service for the space of thirty days, upon complaint and proof, &c. before any two justices of the peace, and three freeholders, &c. it shall and may be lawful for such justices and freeholders to order such slave to be punished, by cutting off one of the feet of such slave, or inflict such other corporal punishment as they shall think fit.” Now that I may inform my readers, what corporal punishments are sometimes thought fit to be inflicted, I will refer to the testimony of Sir Hans Sloane, (see voyage to the islands of Madeira, Barbadoes, &c. and Jamaica, with the natural history of the last of these islands, &c. London 1707. Introduction, p. 56, and 57.) “The punishment for crimes of slaves (says he) are usually, for rebellions, burning them, by nailing them down to the ground with crooked sticks on every limb, and then applying the fire, by degrees, from the feet and hands, and burning them gradually up to the head, whereby the pains are extravagant; for crimes of a lesser nature, gelding, or chopping off half the foot with an axe. These punishments are suffered by them with great constancy.—For negligence, they are usually whipped by the overseers with lance-wood switches, till they be bloody, and several of the switches broken, being first tied up by their hands in the mill houses.—After they are whipped till they are raw, some put on their skins pepper and salt, to make them smart; at other times, their masters will drop melted wax on their skins, and use several very exquisite torments.” Sir Hans adds, “These punishments are sometimes merited by the Blacks, who are a very perverse generation of people; and though they appear very harsh, yet are scarce equal to some of their crimes, and inferior to what punishments other European nations inflict on their slaves in the East-Indies, as may be seen by Moquet, and other travellers.” Thus Sir Hans Sloane endeavours to excuse those shocking cruelties, but certainly in vain, because no crimes whatsoever can merit such severe punishments, unless I except the crimes of those who devise and inflict them. Sir Hans Sloane, indeed, mentions rebellion as the principal crime; and certainly it is very justly esteemed a most heinous crime, in a land of liberty, where government is limited by equitable and just laws, if the same are tolerably well observed; but in countries where arbitrary power is exercised with such intolerable cruelty as is before described, if resistance be a crime, it is certainly the most natural of all others.
But the 19th clause of the 38th act, would indeed, on a slight perusal, induce us to conceive, that the punishment for rebellion is not so severe as it is represented by Sir Hans Sloane; because a slave, though deemed rebellious, is thereby condemned to no greater punishment than transportation. Nevertheless, if the clause be thoroughly considered, we shall find no reason to commend the mercy of the legislature; for it only proves, that the Jamaica law-makers will not scruple to charge the slightest and most natural offences with the most opprobrious epithets; and that a poor slave, who perhaps has no otherwise incurred his master’s displeasure than by endeavouring (upon the just and warrantable principles of self-preservation,) to escape from his master’s tyranny, without any criminal intention whatsoever, is liable to be deemed rebellious, and to be arraigned as a capital offender. “For every slave and slaves that shall run away, and continue but for the space of twelve months, except such slave or slaves as shall not have been three years in this island, shall be deemed rebellious,” &c. (see act 38, clause 19. p. 60.) Thus we are enabled to define what a West Indian tyrant means by the word rebellious. But unjust as this clause may seem, yet it is abundantly more merciful and considerate than a subsequent act against the same poor miserable people, because the former assigns no other punishment for persons so deemed rebellious, than that they, “Shall be transported by order of two justices and three freeholders,” &c. whereas the latter spares not the blood of these poor injured fugitives: For by the 66th act, a reward of 50 pounds is offered to those who “shall kill or bring in alive any rebellious slaves,” that is, any of these unfortunate people whom the law has “deemed rebellious,” as above; and this premium is not only tendered to commissioned parties (see 2d. clause) but even to any private “hunter, slave, or other person,” (see 3d. clause.) Thus it is manifest, that the law treats these poor unhappy men with as little ceremony and consideration as if they were merely wild beasts. But the innocent blood that is shed in consequence of such a detestable law, must certainly call for vengeance on the murderous abettors and actors of such deliberate wickedness: And though many of the guilty wretches should even be so hardened and abandoned as never afterwards to be capable of sincere remorse, yet a time will undoubtedly come, when they will shudder with dreadful apprehensions, on account of the insufficiency of so wretched an excuse, as that their poor murdered brethren were by law “deemed rebellious” But bad as these laws are, yet in justice to the freeholders of Jamaica, I must acknowledge, that their laws are not near so cruel and inhuman as the laws of Barbadoes and Virginia, and seem at present to be much more reasonable than they have formerly been; many very oppressive laws being now expired, and others less severe enacted in their room.
But it is far otherwise in Barbadoes; for by the 329th act, p. 125. “If any Negro or other slave, under punishment by his master, or his order, for running away, or any other crimes or misdemeanors towards his said master, unfortunately shall suffer in life, or member, (which seldom happens) (but it is plain by this law that it does sometimes happen) no person whatever shall be liable to any fine therefore; but if any man shall, of wantonness or only of bloody-mindedness, or cruel intention, wilfully kill a Negroe or other slave of his own;”—now the reader, to be sure, will naturally expect, that some very severe punishment must in this case be ordained, to deter the wanton, bloody-minded, and cruel wretch, from wilfully killing his fellow creatures; but alas! the Barbadian law-makers have been so far from intending to curb such abandoned wickedness, that they have absolutely made this law on purpose to skreen these enormous crimes from the just indignation of any righteous person, who might think himself bound in duty to prosecute a bloody-minded villain; they have therefore presumptuously taken upon them to give a sanction, as it were, by law, to the horrid crime of wilful murder; and have accordingly ordained, that he who is guilty of it in Barbadoes, though the act should be attended with all the aggravating circumstances before-mentioned—“shall pay into the public treasury (no more than) fifteen pounds sterling,” but if he shall kill another man’s, he shall pay the owner of the Negroe double the value, and into the public treasury twenty-five pounds sterling; and he shall further, by the next justice of the peace, be bound to his good behaviour during the pleasure of the governor and council, and not be liable to any other punishment or forfeiture for the same.
The most consummate wickedness, I suppose, that any body of people, under the specious form of a legislature, were ever guilty of! This act contains several other clauses which are shocking to humanity, though too tedious to mention here.
According to an act of Virginia, (4 Anne, ch. 49. sec. 37. p. 227.) “after proclamation is issued against slaves that run away and lie out, it is lawful for any person whatsoever, to kill and destroy such slaves, by such ways and means as he, she, or they, shall think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime for the same,” &c. And lest private interest should incline the planter to mercy, (to which we must suppose such people can have no other inducement) it is provided and enacted in the succeeding clause, (No 28.) “That for every slave killed, in pursuance of this act, or put to death by law, the master or owner of such slave shall be paid by the public.”
Also by an act of Virginia, (9 Geo. I. ch. 4. sect. 18. p. 343.) it is ordained, “That, where any slave shall hereafter be found notoriously guilty of going abroad in the night, or running away, and lying out, and cannot be reclaimed from such disorderly courses by the common method of punishment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the court of the county, upon complaint and proof thereof to them made by the owner of such slave, to order and direct every such slave to be punished by dismembering, or any other way, not touching life, as the said county court shall think fit.”
I have already given examples enough of the horrid cruelties which are sometimes thought fit on such occasions. But if the innocent and most natural act of “running away” from intolerable tyranny, deserves such relentless severity, what kind of punishment have these law-makers themselves to expect hereafter, on account of their own enormous offences! Alas! to look for mercy (without a timely repentance) will only be another instance of their gross injustice! “Having their consciences seared with a hot iron,” they seem to have lost all apprehensions that their slaves are men, for they scruple not to number them with beasts. See an act of Barbadoes, (No 333. p. 128.) intituled, “An act for the better regulating of outcries in open market:” here we read of “Negroes, cattle, coppers, and stills, and other chattels, brought by execution to open market to be outcried, and these (as if all of equal importance) are ranged together in great lots or numbers to be sold.”
—Page 70. In the 329th act of Barbadoes, (p. 122.) it is asserted, that “brutish slaves deserve not, for the baseness of their condition, to be tried by a legal trial of twelve men of their peers, or neighbourhood, which neither truly can be rightly done, as the subjects of England are;” (yet slaves also are subjects of England, whilst they remain within the British dominions, notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary) “nor is execution to be delayed towards them, in case of such horrid crimes committed,” &c.
A similar doctrine is taught in an act of Virginia, (9 Geo. I. ch. 4. sect. 3. p. 339.) wherein it is ordained, “that every slave, committing such offence as by the laws ought to be punished by death, or loss of member, shall be forthwith committed to the common goal of the county, &c. And the sheriff of such county, upon such commitment, shall forthwith certify the same, with the cause thereof, to the governor or commander in chief, &c. who is thereupon desired and impowered to issue a commission of Oyer and Terminer, To such persons as he shall think fit; which persons, forthwith after the receipt of such commission, are impowered and required to cause the offender to be publicly arraigned and tried, &c. without the solemnity of a jury,” &c. Now let us consider the dangerous tendency of those laws. As Englishmen, we strenuously contend for this absolute and immutable necessity of trials by juries: but is not the spirit and equity of this old English doctrine entirely lost, if we partially confine that justice to ourselves alone, when we have it in our power to extend it to others? The natural right of all mankind, must principally justify our insisting upon this necessary privilege in favour of ourselves in particular; and therefore if we do not allow that the judgment of an impartial jury is indispensably necessary in all cases whatsoever, wherein the life of man is depending, we certainly undermine the equitable force and reason of those laws, by which we ourselves are protected, and consequently are unworthy to be esteemed either Christians or Englishmen.
Whatever right the members of a provincial assembly may have to enact bye laws, for particular exigences among themselves, yet in so doing they are certainly bound, in duty to their sovereign, to observe most strictly the fundamental principles of that constitution, which his Majesty is sworn to maintain; for wheresoever the bounds of the British empire are extended, there the common law of England must of course take place, and cannot be safely set aside by any private law whatsoever, because the introduction of an unnatural tyranny must necessarily endanger the King’s dominions. The many alarming insurrections of slaves in the several colonies, are sufficient proofs of this. The common law of England ought therefore to be so established in every province, as to include the respective bye laws of each province; instead of being by them excluded, which latter has been too much the case.
Every inhabitant of the British colonies, black as well as white, bond as well as free, are undoubtedly the King’s subjects, during their residence within the limits of the King’s dominions; and as such, are entitled to personal protection, however bound in service to their respective masters; therefore, when any of these are put to death, “without the solemnity of a jury,” I fear that there is too much reason to attribute the guilt of murder to every person concerned in ordering, the same, or in consenting thereto; and all such persons are certainly responsible to the King and his laws, for the loss of a subject. The horrid iniquity, injustice, and dangerous tendency of the several plantation laws which I have quoted, are so apparent, that it is unnecessary for me to apologize for the freedom with which I have treated them. If such laws are not absolutely necessary for the government of slaves, the law-makers must unavoidably allow themselves to be the most cruel and abandoned tyrants upon earth; or, perhaps, that ever were on earth. On the other hand, if it be said, that it is impossible to govern slaves without such inhuman severity, and detestable injustice, the same will certainly be an invincible argument against the least toleration of slavery amongst christians, because the temporal profit of the planter or master, however lucrative, cannot compensate the forfeiture of his everlasting welfare, or (at least I may be allowed to say) the apparent danger of such a forfeiture.
Oppression is a most grievous crime, and the cries of these much injured people, (though they are only poor ignorant heathens) will certainly reach heaven! The scriptures (which are the only true foundation of all laws) denounce a tremendous judgment against the man who should offend even one little-one; “It were better for him (even the merciful Saviour of the world hath himself declared) that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke xvii. 2. Who then shall attempt to vindicate those inhuman establishments of government, under which, even our own countrymen so grievously offend and oppress (not merely one, or a few little ones, but) an immense multitude of men, women, children, and the children of their children, from generation to generation? May it not be said with like justice, it were better for the English nation that these American dominions had never existed, or even that they should have been sunk into the sea, than that the kingdom of Great Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness! In short, if the King’s prerogative is not speedily exerted for the relief of his Majesty’s oppressed and much injured subjects in the British colonies, (because to relieve the subject from the oppression of petty tyrants is the principal use of the royal prerogative, as well as the principal and most natural means of maintaining the same) and for the extension of the British constitution to the most distant colonies, whether in the East or West Indies, it must inevitably be allowed, that great share of this enormous guilt will certainly rest on this side the water.
I hope this hint will be taken notice of by those whom it may concern; and that the freedom of it will be excused, as from a loyal and disinterested adviser.
Notes
A: Disgrace.
B: Loss.